Complaint For Custody Parental Rights And: Fill & Download for Free

Contrary to what other answers say, such cases are indeed true and their number is on the rise.Some Scandinavian countries, ruled by the Left for decades, created systems of extensive state intervention in parental rights. According to the critics of such system, it leads to systematic abuse of human rights. I have no data to verify such a blanket claim. There is however no doubt that occasional abuse of human rights does happen.In the case piloted by the Children's Ombudsman in Poland, a Swedish father Sam Shamoun from Goteborg sought asylum in Poland, after his son was taken away by the Swedish social care officials. His 11 yo son Jack was placed in foster care, despite the fact that his biological father was not deprived of parental rights by any court.It happened when the boy’s mother was deprived of her parental rights after getting very ill. Such a practice itself may be considered a severe violation of human rights.According to the father, his son experienced violence in his new family. Yet all of his complaints were dismissed by the Swedish police, which refused to take any action[1]. Here are father and son after positive decision of Polish court:Polish courts decided to dismiss the European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden for “kidnapping” of Mr Shamoun’s own son.Another case is a Norwegian mother Silje Garmo. She and her two years old daughter Eira were granted asylum in Poland.Her first child, a 12 yo daughter was taken away from Silje on basis of a complaint written by the father.It was filed after the daughter accused him of sexually molesting her.The infamous Barnevernet built the entire case on information from such an obviously biased source (a reasonable suspicion of acting out of revenge) and on the accusations that should not be considered as valid basis for stripping someone of their parental rights (“chaotic lifestyle”, abusing of painkillers, chronic fatigue syndrome). Even limiting of parental rights on such basis should be supported by impartial, presumably medical evidence.Yet despite of lack of such evidence, Barnevertnet not only took away one daughter, but also started to harass Silje when she was pregnant with her second child.She realized that soon after being born, her second child will also be stolen by the merciless Norwegian bureaucracy.She fled to Poland and applied for asylum, invoking article 8 of European Convention of Human Rights, violated by Norway in her case.Silje and Eira were both granted asylum in Poland in 2019[2] .Norway violated human rights of Ms Garmo multiple times and in a very serious way.She was practically deprived of her parental rights, despite no court decision stripping her of them.She was arrested in Spain for allegedly kidnapping her daughter, despite legally still having all her parental rights.Her daughter was placed in a Spanish child care center, from where she was then kidnapped by two agents of Barnevernet.Her daughter was placed in care of her biological father - the same man she accused of sexually molesting her.Norwegian authorities refused to investigate her accusations.Silje’s passport was taken away by Spanish authorities acting on a Norwegian request, which prevented her from coming back to Norway and from fighting for custody rights. Unsurprisingly, she lost the case.She was then harassed by Norwegian authorities during her second pregnancy, on basis of a complaint filed again by the same man - who allegedly molested her own daughter.After she fled to Poland, Norwegian authorities started a Schengen-wide search for Silje, placed legally binding entries in European information system, invalidated her passport and informed Polish authorities that she is wanted in Norway in the case regarding custody of her second daughter.Yet no legally biding notification was ever sent to Silje, she was not informed of her passport being invalidated, she was not arrested, she was not informed about any new legal case involving her custody rights.Only one Norwegian newspaper dared to tell the true story of Silje Garmo - and it was completely removed from Internet only a few hours later[3].Such is the power of self-censorship in a free, democratic country of Norway…The third case that I know of, regards the 7 yo, autistic Martin, son of Katya and Conrad den Hertog. He is an Austrialian IT specialist, she is a Russian lawyer. Both are highly intelligent, highly cultured people. They have a Dutch citizenship.Unfortunately in a very grim turn of events, the Dutch authorities have mistaken Martin’s non verbal autism for a result of psychological abuse by his parents.They decided to seek asylum in Poland after losing faith in the Dutch justice system.Conrad and Katya lost the custody battle in court. It all begun with a terrible misunderstanding, when Martin, who was not yet officially diagnosed with autism, was kept in a room with closed curtains, which was interpreted by the neighbors as a universal sign of abuse.After raiding den Hertog’s house and taking away the boy, the authorities soon recognized signs of his developmental delay. It was however ascribed to the alleged abuse at the hands of his parents.After Martin was taken away from his parents, several experts officially confirmed the initial diagnosis, yet the Dutch authorities refused to recognize it, to avoid embarrassment.“The Dutch CPS revealed their plans in court to lock up Martin in a Dutch institute for mentally handicapped people for the rest of his life, until he dies as an old man, despite the fact he's only ever been diagnosed with autism,' he explained [4] .”That’s how the laws allowing bureaucrats to destroy families on a whim, could make life a living hell for this autistic boy. Can we blame his parents for a decision to leave all their possessions and careers behind and to seek asylum in a country which still respects parental rights?We can also describe a story of Denis Lisow and his three daughters who escaped from Sweden.The Swedish social care took them away and placed them in a Muslim foster family.The only reason for such decision was that Lisow’s wife was diagnosed with schizophrenia.A completely foreign family, which was also culturally and religiously alien to the children, was allegedly better suited to take care of them than their own father.Was some anti-Slavic phobia involved in this decision?Denis Lisow was not accused of any misconduct, his parental skills were not questioned.Swedish authorities requested Mr. Lisow to legalize his stay in Sweden, to divorce his wife, to deprive her of her parental rights and to find a legal job in Sweden.All these requests violated Mr Lisow’ human rights in a very obvious way.He “kidnapped” his daughters and came to Poland, where he was arrested on a basis of the European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden[5].The Polish court decided to dismiss the warrant but not to grant an asylum.Denis Lisow thanked Polish authorities for their support and headed home to Russia, along with all of his three daughters.He hopes to reunite with his wife as well.Thank you for reading,/Lucky/Footnotes[1] Obywatel Szwecji zabrał dziecko z rodziny dyżurnej i przyjechał do Polski. Prosi o azyl[2] Norweżka otrzymała azyl w Polsce. Obawiała się odebrania dziecka przez Barnevernet - Polsat News[3] Uciekła z dzieckiem do Polski. W Norwegii cenzurę na wiadomości zdjęto… tylko na chwilę[4] Australian couple ABDUCT severely autistic son and flee to Poland[5] Przesłuchano Rosjanina, który wywiózł swoje córki ze Szwecji do Polski. Sąd zdecyduje, czy wydać go Szwecji

Why isn’t child support on a card that can only be used for children’s clothing, child’s food, etc. to avoid misuse?Child support is money that would have been used to support a couple’s child while they were together and no one would have argued about because the money wasn’t separated and treated as a bill that appears to only be paid by one parent. If both parents work, both parents are actively paying child support. The total amount of money expected to be spent raising a child is not the amount of the child support paid by the non-custodial parent. That’s just a percentage of it. The other parent is also providing a percentage, they just aren’t asked to pay it to themselves as though it were a bill. They’re also more likely than not paying a lot more than their portion, which the non-custodial parent is able to get away with. Non-custodial parents who are pitching a fit about where the money is going and how it is spent are being purposely obtuse about the whole situation and want to control things that are no longer in their control so they claim that the child support isn’t being used in appropriate ways. I’m not saying it is never misused, but I will say that it isn’t misused as often as the complaints by non-custodial parents would suggest.So you think that putting the money on a card that prevents the custodial parent from spending it on something other than the child would be the right way to go about it. You’re wrong. Child support doesn’t just go to things that only the child benefits from. It doesn’t pay for just the child’s food, clothing, doctor appointments, haircuts, and toys. It pays a portion of the house note or rent, a portion of the utilities, a portion of the groceries, a portion of transportation costs, and all the other things you don’t think about as being a benefit to the child. The food thing is the one that cracks me up the most… do you actually do grocery shopping just for your child? And if you do, is that a really good model for teaching your child healthy eating habits? My daughter ate what we ate as a family for the most part, so was I supposed to separate her portion of the groceries to prove to my ex that somehow I wasn’t benefitting from the groceries I bought for my family using some miniscule amount of the $475 a month he paid in child support?My rent ranged from $350 to $600 a month for a two-bedroom house when he was paying child support. My car note was $435 a month. Car insurance was around $135 per month. Gasoline was around $100 a month. Groceries were around $800 a month. Utilities were around $300 a month. That doesn’t even take into account the clothing for a growing child (new outfits plus school uniforms and shoes every season or more often depending on how fast she was growing), her sanitary and toiletry needs, her toys, her bedding, her doctor visits and medications (she has multiple environmental allergies), yearly school supplies, or anything else a child needs. So what portion of all that was benefitting only her? And don’t you think if I had $2120 to $2370 in monthly bills that $475 wasn’t really helping that much and if I went out and had a manicure, a haircut, and a hair color every now and again or bought myself new clothes that the money used for that was money I earned and had nothing to do with the child support? Or was I not supposed to use my own money on myself? I was working and remarried, so my income certainly allowed me to be able to have nice things. Yet my ex and his family often accused me of living very well on the child support, even though my daughter had everything she needed and wanted (with the exception of a biological father who used his visitation and made time for her).My ex, by the way, was only paying 55% of what the state determined a child with our total family income should expect her parents to contribute to raising her. I was expected to supply $389 of her support as well as her insurance. I did that and more. And provided for myself as well. Sorry, but I wasn’t about to start doing without to make it appear that I was not benefitting from a meager $475 a month when I was making $2340 a month and my current husband was making $2600 (this was when the child support order was initially made, our pay fluctuated over the next four years that my ex actually paid any child support). My ex was bringing in about $2860 a month, he could afford $475 a month for his oldest child. And if that was more than he could afford, he should have considered that before he had the second child that he had to pay child support for. And he went on and had a third one with a third woman that he is now also paying support for. Again, if you can’t afford to support them, why do you keep making them? And if he thought I really wasn’t using the support to take care of her, he could have taken me to court and gotten custody and I’d have been paying him. Except for the part where he couldn’t prove that I had done anything wrong for that to be required. Because, surprise, I wasn’t misusing the child support.I’m really annoyed by the whole idea that custodial parents are supposed to look like they’re homeless and everything is supposed to go to the child, ignoring that many custodial parents (mostly mothers) have jobs that generate income that is contributing to the household. $475 was not enough to live off of and would barely have paid my rent at the lowest amount with enough left over to cover another bill. Non-custodial parents can’t really think that it is.

All right, I have to answer this, as someone who’s tried a few custody cases (and not, by the way, really made that much of a profit off it).“Custody battles harm children almost always.” Okay, I’ll accept that that might likely be generally true. The problem with it is that it is incomplete. Bad parenting and lack of cooperation that is not addressed by the court can harm children too. Children are not automatically worse off because their custody cases were tried as opposed to left to fester out of court.But the second part, “Why do we, as a society, allow attorneys to profit from the harm of children?” requires, as a premise, that attorneys are “profiting from the harm of children.” This is somewhere between false and misleading and requires as a premise that attorneys do make a profit from custody litigation, and as a subsidiary premise that the fact that attorneys make a profit from custody litigation is the reason custody litigation exists.With regard to the first of these premises, some attorneys can cultivate high-end clients who presumably pay all their bills and so they make money trying custody cases. Those clients are the minority. Most clients in custody cases are of modest means and we might get paid enough to cover the overhead involved in the case. I don’t do much custody right now, because the majority of custody cases are conflicts of interest for me. But the last custody case I tried, the client, who makes more money than I do, only paid perhaps half of the total bill. Meanwhile my own creditors weren’t willing to accept half the payments due for their services. So I wouldn’t say I really “profited” from involvement in that mess. Even when we are getting paid, though, what we are getting paid for is the usual and professional work we do, so your question would in that respect boil down to “why do we, as a society, allow attorneys to conduct business for a profit?”With regard to the subsidiary proposition, custody battles don’t exist because of some sort of sustained marketing campaign by the legal profession to the effect that “custody battles are the best, you don’t really love your kids unless you smear the other parent in court over them.” The same case that I just referenced was actually instigated pro se by the other party (and it was part of a more-or-less continual series of filings this person had made over about 8 years, to which my client was obliged to respond), which gives the lie to the notion that attorneys are the reason that custody litigation exists. Custody litigation exists because separated parents do not get along and do not put their children first and the courts get somewhat reluctantly involved because someone has to look out for the children. The involvement of attorneys just comes along with the fact that the disputes get heard in the court system, and the fact that the disputes exist in the first place, as I said before, isn’t caused by the court system.If you can find some way to resolve custody battles without the involvement of the court system, I suspect most attorneys would be quite happy to be rid of their roles as custody advocates. However, I’ve never seen such a proposal that would be practical with regard to the due-process rights of the parents. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to involvement with one’s children is a “fundamental liberty,” so simply delegating custody disputes to therapists or others outside the system won’t fly. (That much said, many courts already do require that parties at least attempt therapy or mediation prior to listing the case for trial—only the most cantankerous cases get listed for trial, and those are presumably the parents whose incandescent antipathy is causing the “harm” to their children.)Lastly, the most recent custody case I was involved in, though I was not actually trying it, because I was the guardian ad litem for the children in the case, was again a very bitter breakup and a pretty sad deal for all concerned, but the parents’ lawyers were if anything a bright spot; their attention to detail, ability to cooperate with each other when the parents were not able to, and respect for the parties and the children were transparent, and they deserved every penny they were paid for putting up with that case for about a year of total pendency and three days of court hearings.So, “why”? Legal services are a necessary part of the judicial system and there is no better way.P.S. By the way, I think I should add here that the majority of custody complaints are resolved by stipulated orders without trial; they might be filed by non-custodial parents seeking partial custody or custodial parents seeking confirmation of their status, but primary custody often isn’t at issue. In this respect the court’s involvement is largely ministerial and there’s no “harm” to the children being done. Sometimes the involvement of the lawyers leads to these stipulated orders—I’ve told people already “there is no point in fighting about this given this and that,” and so has everyone I know who does this kind of work. It really is often the pro se parties who fight the hardest and most bitterly.